It's disingenuous of a PPC to present judgements in a county court as if they are stated cases, which clearly they are not. They have quoted comments from the district judges concerned which have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your individual case should it go to court. I think a judge would be very interested to see this letter as an indication of the apparantly dubious tactics being employed by this PPC.

There should be a section on the registration document (V5) which allows you to detail the change and then you send it back to DVLA. They will then send out a new V5 with the updated information on it.

I was under the impression that the onus of proof being on the supplier if within 6 months of purchase related to items bought new, not second-hand. I'm not 100% sure on that but it may be worth checking.

As lamma says, I, like many people could drive anyone's car with their permission on my insurance plus anyone can drive my car as I have an "any driver" policy to cover anyone I choose to lend my car to (with the approriate license). I don't think either of these features would show on their database check.

It would show up if you gave them the registration number of the vehicle you have shown on your own policy.

Little wonder then that they often 'help' bailiffs to act illegally. It's because they don't understand the law:eek:

That's very true, but it's because the rank and file officers receive no training about civil laws, bailiffs and their powers and are told to do nothing more than to prevent a breach of the peace and advise people to take legal advice from a solicitor, CAB etc in such matters. So bailiffs can give them plenty of flannel about what they can do safe in the knowledge that the majority of front line officers have not had any training to be able to challenge them on their "info".

LOL Ting, I do know why you asked the question:) London Borough of Tower Hamlets is another one that seems to be making the same mistake as the borough I know and love:D

The problem may be relating to how accessible HMCS court records are. I would assume they are now computerised these days, but I am unsure if there is a way for them to search on an individuals name.

It would help if you can scan the PCN you received to allow us to see if it is compliant with the legislation.

I also suggest you do a Google search on "fightback forums" and then pop into the site that comes up and post in their parking section, as there is a lot of knowledge available there, in addition to what advice you will get here.

Maybe thats why its called a CARpark?

So how would you fare if you parked a van in a car park?

Hi Bankoff,

Your stance is similar to the one I have taken, with the main difference being that we agreed to the PCT moving my father into a EMI home on the basis they would fund the costs pending the case going to the SHA for a panel review. Although we have got the panel review to agree with us the battle is by no means over. I will have to keep on fighting this case as the PCT will do everything they can to re-assess my father to show he is no longer eligible.

PS Could a Mod contact me by a means other than PM so that I can address some confidential site issues please?

Tower Hamlet bus lane PCN's do not comply with the London Local Authorities Act in that they state the following:-

"The penalty charge of £120 is payable and must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice"

It should read:-

"The penalty charge of £120 is payable and must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice"

A subtle difference but enough to render the PCN unenforceable. There have been cases at PATAS that have been won on this point.

had a letter this morning, which basically says this is our final answer, we will not reinstate without evidence being provided, the dsa only hold records for 2 years, and that I should have informed them earlier.

what else can I do?

Who gave you that response, is that as a result of going through the various stages of their complaints procedure?

It would certainly be interesting for the OP to update us on what has happened since the thread was started.

I would agree with DHastings. Pearl's returns in the last few years have been abysmal. I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.

For you personally, as an individual? I doubt it very much as I could post anything and everything and you would still not be satisfied.

You'd be surprised.

You are doubting my accuracy so why don't you post up an abundance of cases involving S84 and the general public to prove me wrong?

I'm not the one making the claims, you are. So if you want to make a claim be prepared to back it up when you get challenged. That's how it works in these forums.

I can't find any. But a simple google of posties being charged with S83 does.

In other words you can't substantiate your claim:rolleyes:

So section 83 is aimed at postal operators and section 84 at everyone else.

Do you have any evidence to show that section 84 is rarely used?

The offence of interfering with mail is actually aimed at postal workers and only very rarely has this crime been used against the general public.

 

Does it say in the actual legislation that this is the case?

So if a letter is sent to an address rather than a person, why bother putting a persons name on it?

A very good result for you, well done!

It wasn't clear from your original post if it had been issued by a local authority or a private parking company who might have been trying it on. If the local authority have not opted for decriminalised parking then it effectively means that the only way you have of challenging the ticket is to go to a magistrates court.

Who actually issued this penalty notice?

Pat,

I only highlighted that part to show the difference between what is in the legislation and what Mr Shed posted. I wasn't suggesting that the OP had acted illegally.

You missed a bit out Mr Shed:-

"A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him."

Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26)

The missed out part puts a totally different complexion on it.

No, you've just changed your tack from "withholding the price" to "withholding the ticket".

Thanks for the replies.

I wasn't too sure about CAG policy as I belong to another forum where a member sent an abusive PM to another member and was inititally banned for a month but was then reinstated as it was considered that as the message was sent in private then the usual site rules regarding posting didn't apply.